As the UK government prepares for a pivotal Commons vote on welfare reforms scheduled for July 1, 2025, tensions are running high over the proposed changes to disability benefits, with widespread concern about their impact on disabled people across the country. The reforms, spearheaded by Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall and backed by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, aim to tighten eligibility criteria for the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) daily living component and reduce the health-related element of Universal Credit. However, these measures have sparked one of the largest rebellions within the Labour Party in recent memory, with over 120 MPs threatening to vote against the bill, citing fears of hardship for disabled claimants.
At the heart of the controversy is an analysis published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) on June 26, 2025, which projects that by the fiscal year 2029-30, 800,000 fewer working-age people will receive the PIP daily living award. The IFS report breaks down this figure into 430,000 new applicants who will be denied awards under the stricter rules and 370,000 existing claimants who will lose benefits following reassessment. The average annual loss for those affected is estimated at £3,850, a substantial cut that has alarmed advocates and politicians alike.
The PIP daily living award is designed to help disabled individuals cover the extra costs associated with daily tasks such as washing, dressing, and preparing food. Similarly, the health-related element of Universal Credit provides additional support for those whose ability to work is limited by physical or mental health conditions. The proposed reforms seek to cut £6 billion annually from health-related benefit spending by the end of the decade, with a net saving of £5 billion after accounting for increased Universal Credit payments for non-health-related claimants. Despite these savings, the IFS cautions that spending on health-related benefits will still be significantly higher than pre-pandemic levels, rising from £36 billion in 2019-20 to a projected £61 billion in 2029-30 with reforms, compared to £66 billion without them.
These changes have not gone unnoticed in the corridors of power. More than 120 Labour MPs have signed a reasoned amendment demanding further scrutiny and consultation with disabled people, effectively threatening to block the bill. The rebellion reflects deep unease within the party, with some MPs arguing that the reforms have not adequately considered the lived experiences of disabled constituents. The scale of opposition represents the most significant challenge to Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership to date, risking a damaging defeat in the Commons.
In response to the mounting pressure, the government has moved to offer concessions aimed at placating rebel MPs. On June 27, 2025, Downing Street confirmed that existing PIP claimants would be protected from the new eligibility requirements, which will now only apply to new claims from November 2026 onward. Welfare Secretary Liz Kendall outlined these changes in a letter to MPs, promising that all current recipients will remain within the existing system. Additionally, the Universal Credit health element payments will be adjusted to ensure that existing claimants and new claimants meeting severe conditions criteria have their incomes fully protected in real terms.
These concessions, while significant, come at a cost. The IFS estimates that protecting current PIP claimants will reduce the anticipated savings from the reforms by at least £1.5 billion. ITV Political Editor Robert Peston further reported that the government’s offer to “grandfather” both PIP payments and the disability top-up in Universal Credit for existing claimants could shave around £3 billion off the projected savings by 2029. Rebel MPs have hailed these moves as major victories but acknowledge that the government has made a substantial U-turn.
The concessions have split opinion within the Labour Party. Some senior rebels have indicated a willingness to accept the package, with one MP describing it as a “good package” with “generous concessions.” However, several prominent Labour figures on the left, including Diane Abbott, Richard Burgon, and Nadia Whittome, have publicly vowed to continue opposing the bill, citing concerns that the reforms still fall short of protecting disabled people adequately.
Beyond Parliament, opposition to the reforms has also emerged from local government. On June 26, 2025, nearly two-thirds of Labour councillors across the Tees Valley—70 councillors from all five local authorities—signed a letter urging Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall to pause the PIP changes. The letter expressed “deep concern” about the impact on disabled residents and warned that the reforms could remove an estimated £115 million from the local economy. The councillors highlighted that 65% of people in work and claiming PIP in Hartlepool alone score less than four points in any daily living activity, meaning the new criteria would disproportionately affect them. The letter also called for comprehensive engagement with disabled people and disability rights groups to rethink the approach.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has insisted that the vote on the welfare reforms will proceed as planned despite the rebellion. Speaking to LBC on June 25, 2025, he argued that the welfare system is “broken” and traps people in a cycle that prevents them from entering work. Starmer emphasized that reform is necessary and framed it as a “progressive argument” aligned with Labour values. Nevertheless, the scale of opposition within the party and the public outcry over the potential hardship for disabled people have cast a shadow over the government’s plans.
The controversy is further complicated by the dramatic rise in PIP claimants over recent years. According to the Department for Work and Pensions, there were over 3.7 million PIP claimants in England and Wales as of April 2025, a 77% increase since 2019. Much of this growth is attributed to psychological conditions, with cases for anxiety and depression more than doubling in the same period. The government argues that the reforms are necessary to ensure sustainability and fairness in the welfare system, but critics warn that the changes risk pushing vulnerable people into poverty—estimates suggest as many as 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, could be adversely affected.
Adding to the political complexity, economists have warned that failing to pass the reforms as originally planned could jeopardize Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s financial headroom ahead of the Autumn 2025 Budget. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) cautioned that without the savings from welfare reform, the government might need to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere, increasing economic uncertainty during a period of already low consumer and business confidence.
Conservative politicians have seized on the Labour government’s struggles. Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride described Starmer’s concessions as the “latest in a growing list of screeching U-turns” and criticized the additional spending commitments as unfunded. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch suggested that her party would pursue even deeper cuts to the welfare bill if elected, promising to slash £9 billion.
As the July 1 vote approaches, the government faces a delicate balancing act: securing enough support within its own ranks to pass the reforms while addressing genuine concerns about the welfare system’s impact on disabled people. The concessions offered so far indicate a willingness to compromise, but with significant opposition remaining, the outcome remains uncertain. What is clear is that the debate over welfare reform has brought to light the profound challenges of designing a system that is both fiscally sustainable and compassionate to those who depend on it.
